Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Happy Hour Roundup

* Sestak Web video mocks Specter's Bush ties: Check out this new web video that Joe Sestak's campaign sent over poking fun at Arlen Specter's new ad starring Obama:

* More Pennsylvania news: At the press briefing today, Robert Gibbs confirmed that Obama will not be going to Pennsylvania to campaign for Specter.

* And: Specter may have handed Sestak another issue when he said today that he won't be pushed into committing to support Elena Kagan before primary day next week.

* TPM cuts a video mashup that shows just how much Specter's new ad starring the President resembles his old ad starring another President.

* Marc Ambinder says the administration's talk about revising Miranda may be mostly just talk.

* Senior ACLU attorney Christopher Anders emails a response to the White House's claim today that Obama wants "limited flexibility" on Miranda:

"It is both disappointing and puzzling that the Administration wants Congress to cut back on the Miranda protections. The Attorney General has testified three times to Congress that Miranda has not impeded recent investigations, and Holder has to know that the Supreme Court already decided a major case, by a 7-2 majority, holding that Congress cannot pare back Miranda rights. The Administration correctly pushed back hard against partisan critics who complained about how federal law enforcement investigated attempted attacks, but now Holder and Gibbs inexplicably seem to be inviting Congress to violate the Constitution."

That sounds right to me, though I still want to see the administration's proposal...

* Question of the day, from Chris Cillizza: Is John McCain starting to panic?

* Republican officials run away as fast as they can from the RNC's odd attack on Kagan for praising the first African American on the Supreme Court.

* And here's the reassuring fact of the day: A Dem polling firm finds that only 13% of Republicans believe Rush Limbaugh's feverishly elaborate theory that environmentalists may have staged the Gulf oil spill.

What else is happening?

By Greg Sargent  |  May 11, 2010; 5:51 PM ET
Categories:  2010 elections , Foreign policy and national security , Happy Hour Roundup , Senate Dems , Senate Republicans , Supreme Court  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Obama wants "limited flexibility" on Miranda
Next: The Morning Plum

Comments

I'm amazed at how little press all the deaths (119) in Iraq on Monday has received.

Add the numbers the Center for American Progress put out last week and I'd say you have the makings for some serious reflection on our foreign misadventures.

Once again I ask: when will the neocons apologize and admit that their strategies are wrong?

Posted by: BGinCHI | May 11, 2010 5:59 PM | Report abuse

Carl Levin says he may include the repeal of DADT in the defense bill this year over Bob Gates objections, if he thinks they have the votes to pass it.

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/levin-to-defy-gates-on-dadt-well-sort-of.php

Posted by: suekzoo1 | May 11, 2010 5:59 PM | Report abuse

BG, the US has a classic case of "short-timers syndrome" toward Iraq. Somehow I do believe we are going to get a loud and alarming wake up call from there at some point.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | May 11, 2010 6:05 PM | Report abuse

13% of Republicans believe Rush Limbaugh's feverishly elaborate theory that environmentalists may have staged the Gulf oil spill.

I am supposed to feel good that 1 in 8 Republicans believe that environmentalists would create a giant environmental disaster to advocate for a cleaner environment?

I guess its less than believe that cavemen rode dinosaurs and that the earth is 6000 yrs old, but still...

Posted by: srw3 | May 11, 2010 6:06 PM | Report abuse

"Check out this new web video that Joe Sestak's campaign sent over poking fun at Arlen Specter's new ad starring Obama"

I don't like Sestak's ad. Maybe it's just me but I found it a bit disparaging of Obama and I doubt that is what Sestak's aiming for.

Posted by: wbgonne | May 11, 2010 6:09 PM | Report abuse

"Is John McCain starting to panic?"

God, I hope so. If he's panicked, he more likely to do something stupid and rash.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | May 11, 2010 6:11 PM | Report abuse

All, I want to thank you again for coming over to the new site.

Are you all adjusting to the new format? Have any questions about it? Is it functioning okay in general?

(I'm still trying to figure out whether there's a way to install live links in here, I'm assuming it's possible)

Posted by: Greg Sargent | May 11, 2010 6:16 PM | Report abuse

I think that must be a Toomey ad that they sent to Greg from a fake Sestak email address.

Posted by: sbj3 | May 11, 2010 6:22 PM | Report abuse

Greg, I still don't care for the font size and presentation of the comments (the overall look). It looks kind of generic and basic.

I'd like html tags and live links too, but fundamentally I'd just like the comment and blog area to look less Soviet-era bland.

Do you have any control over that?

Again, I think a blog like Balloon Juice has a nice comment area.

Posted by: BGinCHI | May 11, 2010 6:34 PM | Report abuse

@Greg: How come the WaPo website left-aligns in my browser when most other sites either center-align or fully justify?

Posted by: sbj3 | May 11, 2010 6:43 PM | Report abuse

BG and sbj, I will try to get answers to these questions...

Posted by: Greg Sargent | May 11, 2010 6:49 PM | Report abuse

"The Administration correctly pushed back hard against partisan critics who complained about how federal law enforcement investigated attempted attacks, but now Holder and Gibbs inexplicably seem to be inviting Congress to violate the Constitution."

On this story, I believe the WH is just putting the ball in Congress' court. You have loud mouth McCain and Graham crying every time Miranda is read, the WH is saying change the law and we'll conform to the new law. Otherwise, the law is the law so shut up...

Posted by: soapm | May 11, 2010 7:06 PM | Report abuse

@Greg

Mostly Im just dissappointed that right when we were awarded threaded comments we have to switch back to a format where you can't reply directly to someone's comment. Otherwise its ok I guess. I do wonder why on the PostPolitics page they have you way down at the bottom under "other stuff" or some such. Definitely should have you up higher on the page.

Posted by: sgwhiteinfla | May 11, 2010 7:06 PM | Report abuse

BTW evidently Jane Hamsher vouched for Erik Erickson as a "honest broker" or something like that today. It seems like every day she finds away to jump over an even bigger shark.

Posted by: sgwhiteinfla | May 11, 2010 7:15 PM | Report abuse

I think John McCain should suspend his campaign.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | May 11, 2010 7:29 PM | Report abuse

sbj asks: "How come the WaPo website left-aligns in my browser?"

It's merely a matter of inertia.

@Greg
HTML seems very important, particularly so if you wish to increase site use and participation. It's a convenience/ease of use feature and I'm quite certain you'll lose readers without it. Also, there's still a fairly consistent delay after submissions, up to thirty seconds. Again, not so user-friendly.

Posted by: bernielatham | May 11, 2010 7:32 PM | Report abuse

That was cute, Mike.

Posted by: bernielatham | May 11, 2010 7:33 PM | Report abuse

Think Progress has a good bead on the astro-turf campaign underway to attack net neutrality. And it provides a good look into how Grover Norquist operates...
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/05/11/netneutrality-grover-afp/

Posted by: bernielatham | May 11, 2010 7:36 PM | Report abuse

Asked about Bennett's loss, Orrin Hatch does the splits (no, it isn't pretty)...

"HATCH: A lot of these Tea Party people are angry, and I’m angry too. … I mean my gosh, They’re mad. They have a right to be mad and I think these Tea Party people are doing the country a service. But when they don’t have an open mind and they won’t listen, that’s another matter and that’s something I think anybody would find fault with." (from TP)

Posted by: bernielatham | May 11, 2010 7:41 PM | Report abuse

Greg:

Re: style, I can live with most anything a long as the content stays high (!). But in what appears to me as a techno-simpleton a very minor adjustment, you could center and enlarge the comment text. Congrats again on making it into the mothership.

Posted by: wbgonne | May 11, 2010 7:52 PM | Report abuse

In his previous post, Greg quoted Robert Gibbs:  "And obviously any change [to Miranda] that takes place would have to be done legislatively."

That's not obvious to me.  It seems like it'd have to be done via a Constitutional amendment.  Congress cannot abridge Constitutional rights by legislation.

And in this post, Greg quotes ACLU attorney Christopher Anders:  "... the Supreme Court already decided a major case, by a 7-2 majority, holding that Congress cannot pare back Miranda rights."

On this issue, when it comes to Robert Gibbs, don't pay any attention to that man behind the curtain.

Posted by: jzap | May 11, 2010 8:09 PM | Report abuse

sg -- fair point, and I appreciate you wanting the mothership to hook me up, but they did give me a good spot on the opinions page, so I can't complain...

And Bernie, and wbgonne, totally agreed on both points. I'm trying to figure out what the chances are of upgrading on all those fronts. You'd think that would be doable here.


Posted by: sargegreg | May 11, 2010 8:32 PM | Report abuse

Reassuring (he asked with Sargent intended irony)? The fact that one Hostess product person believes Rushkie makes me rue the day Marconi was born.

see HoHo
Twinkie
DingDong

Posted by: hoser3 | May 11, 2010 8:53 PM | Report abuse

One of the biggest complaints I have in this format is the section where you type is separated by the large disclaimer.

That kind of stuff is usually reserved for the bottom of the page.

It seems like an odd place to put it, but that's just my opinion.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | May 11, 2010 8:54 PM | Report abuse

"The Tea Party Jacobins"
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/may/27/tea-party-jacobins/

Posted by: bernielatham | May 11, 2010 11:20 PM | Report abuse

I'm a tad pleased this evening to find that in Britain the Conservatives and Lib Dems have formed up together. This was precisely the consequence that the NRO crowd was worried about a week ago (dilution of precious conservative bodily fluids). It's a somewhat petty reason but I'm happy with it.

Posted by: bernielatham | May 11, 2010 11:50 PM | Report abuse

NPR did a story this evening on "All Things Considered" about the race between Specter and Sestak. The reporter mused that if Specter could have asked one thing of President Obama that it would have been to delay naming Kagan as his SCOTUS nominee until May 19th. This got me wondering, could the timing have been intentional? Could this be a way for Obama to wound Specter without appearing to intentionally do so? I also note that Obama isn't rushing to Pennsylvania to swoop in and save Arlen. If the goal was to hurt Specter, the timing could not have been better. If the White House was truly interested in saving Specter, their timing could not have been worse. What difference would a week and a half delay have made - assuming the timing wasn’t meant to make it difficult for Specter?

I’m not asserting that this is the case, just wondering if it others find this plausible. If so, this would be the most Machiavellian of maneuvers by Obama yet. If so, this would something that the Blue Dogs should remember: a president has many ways to help you and even more ways to hurt you.

Posted by: Gasman1 | May 12, 2010 12:17 AM | Report abuse

Let's play GOP Jeopardy!:

Alex, let's have "Proof Republicans are Morons" for $500, please.

Answer: The 13% of Republicans who believe Rush Limbaugh's feverishly elaborate theory that environmentalists may have staged the Gulf oil spill.

Question: What is the percentage of members of the GOP whose heads are filled with bat guano?

Posted by: Gasman1 | May 12, 2010 12:28 AM | Report abuse

All, morning roundup posted:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/05/the_morning_plum_6.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | May 12, 2010 8:30 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company